DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 05-02102 
SSN: ------------------ ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel 
 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
September 29, 2009 
 
______________ 
 
DECISION 
______________ 
 
 
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF-86), on January 27, 2003 
(Item 6).  On December 12, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant detailing security concerns under 
Guidelines G and B.  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of 
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the revised adjudicative 
guidelines (AG) promulgated by President Bush on December 29, 2005, and effective 
within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
  
Applicant submitted an Answer to the SOR on February 4, 2009, and requested a 
decision without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material 
(FORM) to the Applicant on March 17, 2009. The Applicant received the FORM on March 
27, 2009, and was given 30 days to submit any additional information. He elected not to 
submit any additional information. The case was assigned to me on June 17, 2009.  Based 
 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
 
 
Rulings on Procedure 
 
Motion to Amend the SOR 
 
 The Government moved to amend the SOR by adding two allegations under 
Guideline E. (Item 2.) This amendment is dated March 12, 2009. The Applicant was 
provided a copy of this Motion to Amend the Statement of Reasons, along with the FORM, 
on March 17, 2009.  
 
 The Applicant was specifically informed that he had the ability to object to the 
proposed amendment and, if he did not object, to submit a response to the amended SOR. 
The Applicant did not submit an objection to the Motion. The Motion is granted and the 
SOR is amended to add Paragraph 3 under Guideline E and two subparagraphs, 3.a. and 
3.b., as shown in Item 2. 
 
 The Applicant did not submit any additional information concerning the Guideline E 
allegations. I view this as being a denial of the allegations. 
 
Request for Administrative Notice 
 
Department Counsel submitted a formal request that I take administrative notice of 
certain facts relating to the ---------------- (Country One) and the ---------------------------------- 
(Country Two). (FORM at 3-11.) The request and the attached documents were not 
admitted into evidence but were included in the record. The facts administratively noticed 
are set out in the Findings of Fact, below.  
 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
The Applicant is 52 and married.  He is employed by a defense contractor and seeks 
to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense industry. 
 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption) 
 
The Government alleges under Guideline G that the Applicant is ineligible for 
clearance because he uses intoxicants to excess. The Applicant admitted subparagraphs 
1.a., 1.b., and 1.c. Those admissions are hereby deemed findings of fact. He denied 1.d. 
 
1.a. The Applicant was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in 2007, 
while working for his employer in the ---------------------- (Country Three).  He paid a fine to 
the government of Country Three, and his employer transferred him back to the United 
States. (Item 8 at 3, and Item 10.) 
 
 
3 
 
 
1.b.  The Applicant was arrested in October 2003 on an American military installation 
in Country Three for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. The Applicant admits being 
required to take alcohol education classes and his driver’s license being restricted. 
 
1.c.  The Applicant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) in 
August 1998 on an American military installation in ---------- (Country Four). According to 
the Military Police report, the Applicant refused to complete the field sobriety test and also 
refused to take any breath tests. As a result of this incident his driving privileges on the 
base were suspended for one year. (Item 9.) 
 
1.d.  The Applicant denied that, as of November 2007, he drank to the point of 
intoxication two to three times per month. In his Answer the Applicant states, “I only stated 
that I only drink a few beers two to three times a month.” In a report of an interview with the 
Applicant, which the Applicant authenticated as being accurate on the day he was 
interviewed, it is stated: 
 
The subject [Applicant] becomes intoxicated after drinking three beers. 
When intoxicated, the subject becomes friendly and sociable. The subject will 
drink to intoxication two to three times a month. The subject does not believe 
he has a problem with alcohol. The subject’s future intentions are to quit 
drinking alcohol all together. It has caused to (sic) many problems for him in 
the past. (Item 8 at 4.) 
 
 In an Interrogatory dated May 5, 2008, the Applicant stated that he continued to 
drink alcohol two to three times monthly.  In addition, he stated that the last time he was 
intoxicated was December 24, 2005. (Item 7.) 
 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline B - Foreign Influence)   
 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for 
clearance because he has foreign contacts and interests that could lead to the exercise of 
poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant. The Applicant 
admitted all of the allegations under this paragraph. Those allegations are hereby deemed 
findings of fact. 
 
 The Applicant’s wife is a citizen and resident Country One. She lives there with the 
Applicant’s two children as well as his two step-children. The step-children are also citizens 
of Country One. The Applicant states in his Answer, “My wife has no interest in becoming 
an American citizen. . . . Because of the assignments I have chosen, my wife and I decided 
for the family to reside in [Country One] to receive family and moral support during my 
deployment. My intentions [are] to retire in [Country One] in the future.” 
 
 The Applicant’s mother-in-law and her second husband are citizens of Country One 
and reside in Country Two. The Applicant admits that the husband is employed on a 
personal basis by an important person in Country Two. The Applicant states in his Answer, 
 
 
4 
 
                                                
“I do not receive any benefits through my mother-in-law (sic) husband employment with [the 
important person].” Other than this statement, the record is silent regarding the extent and 
depth of the Applicant’s relationship with his relatives who live in Country Two. 
 
 The Applicant has many contacts with Country One.  Accordingly, it is appropriate to 
discuss the situation in Country One at this time.1  Country One is a multiparty republic  
with an elected president and bicameral legislature. It is a representative democracy 
modeled on the U.S. system and has been a close ally of the United States with ties 
stretching back more then a century. Country One has severe economic problems, 
exacerbated by threats from terrorist groups in certain parts of the country. A travel warning 
has been issued to U.S. citizens, warning them of the potential terrorist threat in Country 
One. In addition to the terrorist threat, the United States is also concerned about internal 
human rights issues which present a serious destabilizing concern. These include arbitrary, 
unlawful and extrajudicial killings by elements of the security services, as well as arbitrary 
and warrantless arrests and detentions. 
 
 The Applicant also has contacts, through his wife’s family, with Country Two. It is 
also appropriate to discuss the situation in that country as well. Country Two is a monarchy 
with an all-powerful ruling family. The central institution of the Country Two government is 
the monarchy, and there are no political parties or national elections. The United States 
Government finds that there are significant human rights problems in Country Two, such as 
judicially sanctioned corporal punishment, denial of public trials, and restrictions on civil 
liberties. There is corruption and a lack of government transparency, as well as 
discrimination and violence against women. Other religious, ethnic and minority groups 
have faced discrimination. Terrorist acts have been committed against Americans in 
Country Two and the U.S. Government has issued a travel warning due to the ongoing 
security threat. 
  
Paragraph 3 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct) 
 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for 
clearance because he has made false statements to the Government during the clearance 
screening process.  The Applicant is deemed to have denied the two allegations under this 
paragraph. 
 
3.a. The Applicant filled out a Security Clearance Application on January 27, 2003.  
In that Application the Applicant was required to answer Question 24., which asked, “Have 
you ever been charged with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?” He 
stated “No.” This was a false answer to a relevant question concerning his prior use of 
alcohol.  The report of the Applicant’s interview held in November 2007 states, “Regarding 
the unadmitted 1998 drunk driving arrest, the subject forgot about the incident when 
completing the SF86.” (Item 8 at 3.) The Applicant did not file an answer regarding this 
allegation in the amended SOR, which I find is a denial. Given the state of this record, I 
 
1All of the following statements regarding Country One and Country Two are supported by the documents 
submitted by the Department Counsel in support of her request for administrative notice and its attachments.  
 
 
5 
 
cannot find with a reasonable degree of certainty that the Applicant intentionally falsified his 
Application. This subparagraph is found for the Applicant. 
 
3.b.  The Government alleges in this subparagraph that the Applicant withheld 
information during his November 2007 interview. Specifically, that he was questioned about 
other alcohol related incidents and, while revealing one in January 2007, he actively failed 
to disclose information on the 2003 DUI arrest set forth in subparagraph 1.b., above. I have 
reviewed the statement and it does not state that the Applicant actively, or passively, 
denied any other alcohol related incidents. Given the state of this record, I cannot find with 
a reasonable degree of certainty that the Applicant intentionally did not tell the interviewer 
about his 2003 arrest. This subparagraph is found for the Applicant.  
 
 
Policies 
 
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  When evaluating an 
applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the 
revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each 
guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating 
conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified 
information. 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities 
of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the 
adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, 
impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a 
conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” The 
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past 
and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.  In addition, the 
administrative judge may also rely on his own common sense, as well as his knowledge of 
the law, human nature, and the ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified 
information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this decision, I have 
drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on the evidence 
contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere 
speculation or conjecture. 
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.  
 
 
 
6 
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship 
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government 
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to 
classified information. Security clearance decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
  
Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Section 7 of Executive Order 
10865, “Any determination under this order . . . shall be a determination in terms of the 
national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant 
concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to 
classified or sensitive information).   
 
 
Analysis 
 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline G - Alcohol Consumption) 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Alcohol Consumption is set out in 
AG ¶ 21:       
 
Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of 
questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise 
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. 
 
The Applicant was involved in three alcohol related incidents between 1998 and 
2007.  All three occurred in foreign countries. The Applicant continues to drink alcohol, 
even though he admits that his alcohol use has had an adverse impact on his life. 
 
There are two Disqualifying Conditions concerning Alcohol Consumption that apply 
to this case.  AG ¶ 22.(a) “alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while 
under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents 
of concern, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or 
alcohol dependent.”  In addition, AG ¶ 22.(c) applies, “habitual or binge consumption of 
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed 
as an alcohol abuser or alcohol dependent.”    
 
After considering the evidence in the record, I find that the arguably applicable 
Mitigating Conditions under Alcohol Consumption do not apply to this case.  AG ¶ 23.(a) 
states that it can be a mitigating condition when, “so much time has passed, or the behavior 
was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to 
recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness or good 
judgment.”  AG ¶ 23.(b) states that it can be mitigating where, “the individual acknowledges 
 
 
7 
 
his or her alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to 
overcome this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) 
or responsible use (if an alcohol abuser).” 
 
As stated above, the Applicant’s last alcohol related arrest was two years ago. 
However, he continues to drink alcohol even though he acknowledges that it has had an 
adverse impact on his life and job.  His conduct by definition does not show reliability, 
trustworthiness or good judgment. 
 
The Applicant has not mitigated the security significance of his alcohol consumption. 
 Paragraph 1 of the SOR is found against the Applicant. 
 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline B – Foreign Contacts) 
 
The concern under Guideline B is styled as follows: 
 
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the 
individual has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be 
manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or 
government in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure 
or coercion by any foreign interest. Adjudication under this Guideline can and 
should consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact 
or financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such 
considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United 
States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk 
of terrorism. 
 
 The Applicant has close connections to both Country One and Country Two. The 
Applicant has not submitted any information which would overcome the government’s case. 
The evidence shows that his immediate family lives in Country One, which has a serious 
problem with domestic terrorism. His wife’s mother and her second husband live in Country 
Two. Not only that, but the husband works for an important person in Country Two, a nation 
where serious human rights violations take place. It is the Applicant’s burden to show that 
these connections do not have an impact on his security worthiness. His failure to respond 
in any way, other then the bald statements in his Answer, makes it impossible for me to 
mitigate these allegations. 
 
Based on the evidence the government has presented, the following Disqualifying 
Conditions apply to this case: AG ¶ 7.(a) “contact with a foreign family member . . . who is a 
citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign 
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion”; and AG ¶ 7.(b) “connections 
to a foreign person . . . or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the 
individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s 
desire to help a foreign person . . . or country by providing that information.” I have also 
considered the information concerning Country One and Country Two, provided by 
Department Counsel in her request for administrative notice and its attachments.  
 
 
8 
 
 
The Applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the following 
Mitigating Conditions also apply to this particular case, given his particular background:  AG 
¶ 8.(a) “the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these 
persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such 
that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the 
interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the 
U.S.”; and AG ¶ 8.(b) “there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual’s sense 
of loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or country is so minimal, 
or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., 
that the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. 
interest.”  Paragraph 2 is found against the Applicant. 
 
Paragraph 3 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct) 
 
As stated above, I cannot find that the Applicant did intentionally falsify a Security 
Clearance Application and withhold information during an interview. Paragraph 3 is found 
for the Applicant. 
 
Whole Person Concept 
 
Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s 
conduct and all the circumstances.  Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether 
to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment 
based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. The 
administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 
2(a) in making a reasoned decision:  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) extent to which 
participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and 
other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) 
the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
        
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  The Applicant has had three alcohol 
related arrests in 10 years.  The acts are frequent and recent.  He continues to drink 
alcohol.  I find these incidents show a pattern of alcohol dependence and/or alcohol abuse. 
In addition, the Applicant has significant family connections in Country One and Country 
Two which make it impossible to grant him a security clearance at this time. In viewing all 
the facts of this case, I find that the Applicant has not mitigated the security significance of 
his prior conduct and situation.  As set forth at length above, I find that the there have not 
 
 
9 
 
been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6); and that the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence is very high (AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). In addition, I also find that the 
potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress also exists (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)). 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and/or doubts as to 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude the Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his alcohol 
related incidents, and his foreign contacts.   
 
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has not successfully overcome the 
Government's case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance.  Accordingly, the 
evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary 
allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Government's Statement of Reasons.  
As set forth above, Paragraph 3 is found for the Applicant. 
 
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as 
required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline G:   AGAINST THE APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 1.a:    Against the Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b:    Against the Applicant  
Subparagraph 1.c:    Against the Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d:    Against the Applicant  
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline B:   AGAINST THE APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 2.a:    Against the Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.b:    Against the Applicant  
Subparagraph 2.c:    Against the Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.d:    Against the Applicant  
Subparagraph 2.e:    Against the Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.f:    Against the Applicant 
 
Paragraph 3, Guideline E:   FOR THE APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 3.a:    For the Applicant 
Subparagraph 3.b.:    For the Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
_________________ 
WILFORD H. ROSS 
Administrative Judge